Thermite theory vs. Explosives theory

Originally posted by whiterabbit
No, you're wrong again.

While thermite most definitely would've heated everything up and the debris would have insulated it, the insulating effect of the debris would not be enough to keep steel molten for weeks. It just isn't.

Yeah... 7 sub-basements full of ASH + the pile could NEVER have insulated the superheated molten metals.... Can you estimate the R value for this 80+ foot thick layer of insulation?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
It came from a secondary reaction. Not thermite. There's been lots of speculation about what the secondary reaction was (hydrogen reaction, etc), but it was not caused directly by thermite.

You make such EXACTING statements as if they are FACT when it is PURE SPECULATION. What secondary reaction?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
But if you want me to start discussing the subtleties of aluminothermics, I can't. As I said, I am no expert nor a chemist.

Then why do you continuously post your OPINION as if it is FACT? EVERY SINGL post that you type here is written AS FACT. Posting like that is irresponsible and of course it raises my IRE when you post for PAGES AND PAGES as if you know everything to be FACT but are totally unaware of the EXTREME DIFFERENCES in 'thermite' (dust in a cup) and LINEAR ALUMINOTHERMIC CUTTING DEVICES. Apples and oranges...

Originally posted by Pootie
You just keep ignoring the truth...

And you just keep with the personal insults...

1. There are many far more 'powerful' aluminothermics than the 'thermite' you are seeing in those videos of UNCONTROLLED 'thermite' reactions.

What am I not making clear? It doesn't matter how powerful they are. Unless they're so reactive that they're an explosive and break the steel like an explosive device, it's STILL going to leave a sloppy, obvious mess. The fact that's it more powerful and reactive doesn't change how it's going to cut through that steel. It's going to be messy.

2. There are PATENTED DEVICES for LINEAR CUTTING OF 'THICK STEEL' utilizing aluminothermics... not just the SLOP you are pointing out on your videos. Here is an example of one US Patent 6183569.

Have you actually read that? Because I've seen it before, and I don't think it's what you think it is.

That's a device to cut a small hole in metal. It's not anywhere near the device you'd need to cut all the way around through an entire column.

3. Aluminothermics can be made in almost ANY SHAPE using 'sol-gel' or 'Aerogel'.

Yes, but they still burn straight down.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
And that "much more volatile" mixture still would've created slag all over the place, still would've needed an ignition source, and would've left just as much evidence as typical thermite.

Wrong. More focused cut = less slag.
Ever heard of an "Electric Match"?
Wrong. Less Reactants would leave less evidence.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Why? That would leave even more evidence than thermite alone would.

Some HE would be required for the demolition as we saw it, obviously the less you use, the less trace compounds there are to be found. Duh.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
It might not leave a chemical signature, but it would leave tons of other evidence that even laymen would be able to spot.

Again... The public is to dumb to get that steel/iron should not have melted and think it should have happened. What is more damming molten iron that TV explained away WITHIN MINUTES or EXACT CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS left behind from large quantities of C4, RDX, HMX... Whatever.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
They wouldn't have been too dumb to realize all these cut columns laying about, immediately after the collapse and the dust settled, were from a controlled demolition. People aren't that blind.

Obviously they are because there are thousands of pictures of EXACTLY what you describe above.

Originally posted by whiterabbitI know enough to know this would be damn-near impossible to pull off.

With the $2 TRILLLION Rummy announced he LOST on 9/10/2001 it would not be too much of a hassle I am sure.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Thermite does not naturally burn sideways through things. It would require some kind of device to force it to do so. That's also untested.

Do you READ ANYTHING posted here or just respond blindly with made up "FACTS"...

US Patent 6183569

Want me to find you more?

Originally posted by Griff
In one breath you say that any sort of thermate havoc would be slow and sloppy. Then you state that exotic thermates burn too fast? Which is it because now I'm confused?

No, you have to visualize what happens. The exotic thermates are generally something like Pootie is talking about, some sort of aluminum and a halogen compound. They leave aluminum oxides for the most part, although some of them will leave other metal slags, like zirconium oxides.

But for a thermate designed for incendiary/metal work, you use a ferric thermate which produces molten steel.

The damage done is slow and sloppy, as I said (look at WHAT I said) and compared to a high-brisance explosive, the burn is as well.

Think about having a big crucible of molten steel, and an I-beam. Do you think you can cut through it by pouring molten steel on it in a split second? Can you cut it cleanly? If you and your buddy started at the same time with two separate setups, can you conceive that you will both cut through the beams at the same moment, or to a degree that you will get load failure at the same moment? Remember, the beams are under hefty but differing loads, and the failures will probably come at relatively random times, even if you start at the same time melting your way through the beam, which you probably can't with a ferric thermate.

There's a reason why you use shaped charges to cut metal when you're demolishing a structure. You want the cuts to happen in as controlled a fashion as possible, in terms of time, so you can plan for effect and use delay fuzes to get the timing you want. If your method of making these cuts consists of melting through, then they will fail at different times because they are loaded differently, even if you could begin melting them at the same time. Not only are they loaded differently, but different size members will melt through at different times, and you will get a little faster melting in the middle of the beam than at one end.

If I wanted to drop a railroad trestle so that the train was tossed off to one side, for example, I'd cut the thing up so that the track bed canted after the train was near the far side. That would give you the maximum havoc for the bang. But if I had to do that with thermate, I couldn't possibly time it the way I could if I were cutting the structure with explosives. Same with doing other infrastructure, it's easier to plan for effect if you knock the supports out in a particular way. If I had to melt them in a controlled manner, it would be a mess.

And if exotic thermates are incredibly exothermic, meaning fast and hot, why is it impossible to think that an exotic thermate could burn fast and hot through a column? Disregarding the horizontal/verticle thing for the moment.

Well, you have the old "what is the definition of hot vs heat" issue here. What has more heat, a bathtub full of lukewarm water, or a red hot needle?

In order to heat up a steel beam to the point that it fails under load, it's going to take a certain number of calories that stay with the beam. If I were to put an exotic on the beam, they'd sure heat it, and might even burn some of the surface. But then they're gone. A lot of the heat will radiate away into the surrounding structure. But a ferric thermate will deposit a huge percentage of its heat onto the target in the form of the heat in the molten steel.

This is an issue with Pootie's aerogel argument. Yes you can shape an exotic thermic that way, but the density is very low. You will get something very hot, but not a lot of heat.

Originally posted by Pootie
Yeah... 7 sub-basements full of ASH + the pile could NEVER have insulated the superheated molten metals....

Can you estimate the R value for this 80+ foot thick layer of insulation?

Dude, it wouldn't have kept it molten for weeks. It would've been hot and smouldering, but not red hot and glowing.

Something had to sustain that. Since thermite burns too fast to have sustained it for four weeks, it had to be a secondary something.

You make such EXACTING statements as if they are FACT when it is PURE SPECULATION. What secondary reaction?

I don't know what the secondary reaction was. I believe it was probably the hydrogen reaction that others have speculated.

I just know thermite alone didn't cause it.

Then why do you continuously post your OPINION as if it is FACT? EVERY SINGL post that you type here is written AS FACT. Posting like that is irresponsible and of course it raises my IRE when you post for PAGES AND PAGES as if you know everything to be FACT but are totally unaware of the EXTREME DIFFERENCES in 'thermite' (dust in a cup) and LINEAR ALUMINOTHERMIC CUTTING DEVICES. Apples and oranges...

Connected, is that you?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
And you just keep with the personal insults...

That is not an insult...

Originally posted by whiterabbit
The fact that's it more powerful and reactive doesn't change how it's going to cut through that steel. It's going to be messy.

Not if you combine it with something like this: US Patent 6183569

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Have you actually read that? Because I've seen it before, and I don't think it's what you think it is.

That's a device to cut a small hole in metal. It's not anywhere near the device you'd need to cut all the way around through an entire column.

Wrong again Vushta.

Do you know what LINEAR and GANGED mean? Read the patent... there are three other similar ones also. Here is another... patent #6766744

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Yes, but they still burn straight down.

Ok....

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
...

Items similar too U.S. Patents #6766744 and #6183569 allow for PRECISE TIMING, PRECISE CUTTING and everything you are saying makes "exotic thermates" impossible.

Originally posted by Pootie
Wrong. More focused cut = less slag.
Ever heard of an "Electric Match"?
Wrong. Less Reactants would leave less evidence.

I don't know what else to tell you, but you're wrong.

No thermite in the world, no fancy exotic variety known to man, would leave less slag than a simple cutting torch. It just wouldn't.

Some HE would be required for the demolition as we saw it, obviously the less you use, the less trace compounds there are to be found. Duh.

You'd already have thermite, the ignition source, and the sideways burning device. If you added explosives and their ignition source, that's just another unnecessary complication.

They could've just done it with explosives and saved themselves the hassle.

Obviously they are because there are thousands of pictures of EXACTLY what you describe above.

Please, by all means, post these thousands of pictures. Because they don't exist.

There are some pictures of torch-cut columns. That's it. And I don't even think there's "thousands" of those.

Do you READ ANYTHING posted here or just respond blindly with made up "FACTS"...

US Patent 6183569

Want me to find you more?

And as I already told you in another post, that's a device for burning a small hole through steel. It's not a self-contained device that can make a fairly-neat cut through an entire steel beam--one doesn't exist as far as I know.

Originally posted by Griff
[
In one breath you say that any sort of thermate havoc would be slow and sloppy. Then you state that exotic thermates burn too fast? Which is it because now I'm confused?

Oh, and I was addressing the "burned for weeks" argument there. It's not possible the thermate itself burned for weeks - it goes too fast.

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
...

Items similar too U.S. Patents #6766744 and #6183569 allow for PRECISE TIMING, PRECISE CUTTING and everything you are saying makes "exotic thermates" impossible.

I know you like those patents but they're a pre-made version of a clay mold.

All it does is hold the molten steel against the side of the beam. The same problems are still there. Not only will it take time to melt through, it won't really affect the rate at which that thermate burns and produces its payload of steel and slag. And that won't be within orders of magnitude of the burn rate of a high-brisance shaped charge.

And you'll still produce slag from your device after the steel melts through. There would also be the remnants of the devices all over the building. Did they find any?

Edit: More, that works well on a flat plate but not so well on, say, an I-beam. If you leave a gap in the corner where you have to bend your patented thermate cutter, you will get a big slag-tail down the corner of the beam where the steel runs out.


[edit on 26-3-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
There's a reason why you use shaped charges to cut metal when you're demolishing a structure. You want the cuts to happen in as controlled a fashion as possible, in terms of time, so you can plan for effect and use delay fuzes to get the timing you want. If your method of making these cuts consists of melting through, then they will fail at different times because they are loaded differently, even if you could begin melting them at the same time. Not only are they loaded differently, but different size members will melt through at different times, and you will get a little faster melting in the middle of the beam than at one end.

With this demolishion, you wouldn't need it to be exactly timed. It would make it look far more like an accident if it didn't all happen at once. Consider this, it took time for the towers to fall. There were reports of floors failing in the 20's and others. Different parts did start failing at different times. Once the structure becomes unstable, it would start to collapse at the weakest point in the structure. The weakest point would be the impact zones . So, the theory of it not being exactly timed as a debunk to the thermite theory is not correct IMO.

Originally posted by Griff

With this demolishion, you wouldn't need it to be exactly timed. It would make it look far more like an accident if it didn't all happen at once. Consider this, it took time for the towers to fall. There were reports of floors failing in the 20's and others. Different parts did start failing at different times. Once the structure becomes unstable, it would start to collapse at the weakest point in the structure. The weakest point would be the impact zones . So, the theory of it not being exactly timed as a debunk to the thermite theory is not correct IMO.

But if you didn't do it fairly well, I would think it would tend to fall instead of collapse.

That it didn't is probably the most surprising thing to me overall. I'm no building demolition guy, though, so it might be normal for that design to pancake like that when you get random structural failures.

Edit: So I concede the point to you, if it required precise timing, you would never have gotten two of them to fall like that from airplane strikes. Probably not one, either, but two is beyond reason. So sloppiness has to be "ok" for either thermate or planes/fires.

Too bad it's not a railway, electrical substation or water works, I could give you more of an informed opinion.

Thermate not being particularly useful for demolition is one reason why the Army doesn't have (didn't anyway) electrically triggered incendiaries. You can sort of improvise them but it's "exciting" if you mess up.

I've seen electrically fired thermate security charges but generally most of those are mechanical too.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Scientifically and in a easily understandable way different aspects of what we are talking about here, you have to watch the whole thing through to get the full picture which has IMO very creditable evidence.
I'll post the first link, then you can find the other parts of the video on the google list next to the video part 1 screen, it only about a 1 and 1/2 hour long. after viewing maybe we can put some theories to rest as facts.

Video Link : video.google.com...

Enjoy

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I've seen electrically fired thermate security charges but generally most of those are mechanical too.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

That's why I value your opinion in this thread and elsewhere. You've used some of these things before. I have never, so I can only speculate and change as the new info becomes available. Thanks for your input.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I've seen electrically fired thermate security charges but generally most of those are mechanical too.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Are you referencing "thermate grenades"?

As to the "I Beam" references... What is the point? They were BOX columns.

I do not thing you would need very many aluminothermic charges to sever the core, pre-collapse, nice and quiet... then some other "exotic" HE to blow the outer frame the distances we witnessed it being blown.

Originally posted by Pootie

Are you referencing "thermate grenades"?


No, some filing cabinets and equipment racks have
security charges built in to burn up the contents.

You don't see them very often but they are around.

For filing cabinets, you can pretty much just open the
top drawer and chunk in a thermate grenade but in the
case that the drawers have those high security locks on
and you don't have keys, it can be a bit tougher to make
sure you get everything. You might not have time to get the keys.

For equipment racks, it's a bit harder to make sure you
got everything because the thermate tends to clump up and
go down one hole. So if you have hard drives and boards you
don't want going elsewhere you have to sort of spread it out
a bit better, thus the racks are made to spread the fun around.

These days the flash drives are getting large enough to store
some serious data, so the newer racks often have DOD certified
flash drives with a built-in scuttle function. If you need a few terabytes
of storage, though, it's still rotary hard drives, sad to say.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I know you like those patents but they're a pre-made version of a clay mold.

All it does is hold the molten steel against the side of the beam. The same problems are still there. Not only will it take time to melt through, it won't really affect the rate at which that thermate burns and produces its payload of steel and slag. And that won't be within orders of magnitude of the burn rate of a high-brisance shaped charge.

It actually does not "just hold the molten steel against the" target. It focuses a linear cutting jet much like a cutting torch, or in the other example, an array of jets in a linear layout. Of course it would cut slightly slower than HE chevron shaped chardes... but without the reports AND given the correct mixture, the brisance could be just high enough to make fast cuts but not actually explode. This would be desirable, low noise while severing the core just prior to blowing the exoskeleton with some sort of HE cutter charges (this noise would be drowned out by the "collapse" noise").

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam There would also be the remnants of the devices all over the building. Did they find any?

Who knows what was actually found in the rapidly destroyed and highly guarded crime scene. you have to take the gov't at it's word about what was and was not found... something I am not willing to do.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Edit: More, that works well on a flat plate but not so well on, say, an I-beam.

It is my contention it would have been used to cut or severely weaken the core BOX columns... not I beams.

After considering the various theories of the demolition (i fully believe it was demolished), the only one which can account for all the evidence seen is the theory of using a small hydrogen bomb in the basement.

The logisitcs of using thermite or cutter charges for the entire tower is just implausible. Whilst its probably possible to do it that way, the man power needed to set it up, and the time, would be many times greater than just one or two floors worth of cutter charges and 1 hydrogen bomb in the basement.

The fact that outer steel beams were thrown more than the width of building itself is evidence of something far more powerful than just cutter charges or thermite.

The energy involved in throwing those beams out, as if they were just planks of wood, is unimaginable.

Originally posted by Pootie

As to the "I Beam" references... What is the point? They were BOX columns.

So, where's all the leftover "cutter device" shells? Find me one
in a rubble pic. Thanks.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
So, where's all the leftover "cutter device" shells? Find me one
in a rubble pic. Thanks.

Since TWO FEMA photographers were the only people allowed to photograph and all other cameras were confiscated at military checkpoints entering the restricted zone, I think you know this will be difficult/impossible.

Needle in a haystack...

Why have trace compounds left over by any known HE NOT been found in the dust samples?